Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 46 - Evidence - February 19, 2019
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 19, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:30 a.m., in camera and in public, for the consideration of future business of the committee.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: I understand there’s a motion?
Point of order, Senator Galvez.
Senator Galvez: I would like to have the opinion of the clerk on our procedures in order to know the exact way we change from an in camera meeting to a public meeting.
Joëlle Nadeau, Clerk of the Committee: That was a decision of the chair. It could be appealed by the full committee.
Senator Galvez: We can appeal by the full committee, so I appeal.
The Chair: Senator Galvez, we are now in public. You could have appealed when I put it forward, but you didn’t.
Senator Galvez: I did it. You didn’t hear me.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor.
Senator Galvez, you want to move a motion to do what? To go back in camera?
Senator Galvez: To vote on the —
Senator Manning: So you don’t want a vote in public?
The Chair: It’s too late. It’s done. We are already in public. You could have objected when I moved to go in public, but you did not.
Senator Galvez: I did.
The Chair: After it had already been suspended. I suspended. We are in public.
What are you trying to say, Senator Miville-Dechêne? Do you want us to move back in camera so you can vote in secret?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No. I think we should vote on your decision.
The Chair: What decision? It has been made and we are now in public.
I don’t understand this. You have to make a motion to go back, unless you just want to spank the chair for moving it along. But it’s all going to be done in public. Nothing is going to be done in private here. We are going to have these discussions in public because transparency is very important.
Senator Manning: Do we have a motion on the table now?
The Chair: We don’t have a motion yet.
Senator Manning: Can I make a motion?
The Chair: Yes, please do.
Senator Manning: I would like to make a motion that this committee travel to Newfoundland and Labrador as part of our study on Bill C-48.
Senator Galvez: Point of order. We have a motion on the table.
The Chair: We don’t. Senator Manning is making a motion that we travel to Newfoundland and Labrador on this study.
All those in favour of that motion?
Senator Plett: I would like a recorded vote.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: In favour.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: No, but I’d like to be able to explain why.
[English]
The Chair: You are neutral?
Senator Cormier: No.
I said no, but I hope I will have the time to explain why I said no to this.
The Chair: Well, it’s no.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: I say no to the motion, but I do think that we should seek the views of Newfoundland —
The Chair: No.
Next.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No, but we want to hear those citizens.
[English]
The Chair: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Ms. Nadeau: Yes, 5; no, 7.
Senator Plett: I would like to make a motion that this committee, as part of its study, travel to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The Chair: Is there any discussion before we go to a vote?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I raised my hand to present a motion.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor. Do we have any discussion on the motion?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Chair, I did raise my hand twice.
The Chair: If we have no discussion on the motion, we are going to go to a vote.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I did raise my hand twice to try to speak.
The Chair: I didn’t see you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Well, I have a motion to present.
Senator Simons: I did see Senator Miville-Dechêne’s hand go up. I think she has a motion.
The Chair: There is a motion on the floor. We are going to continue with the motion on the floor. We are going to go to a vote if there is no discussion.
Senator Dawson: I want to appeal the chair’s decision. I think we should hear Senator Miville-Dechêne. She did put her hand up before, and she deserves to be heard.
As you know, you have decided that we didn’t want steering committees, but we are three members of the steering committee. Two of us have not had any participation in preparing this supposed agenda. I think if the deputy chair is ready to speak —
The Chair: Senator Dawson, I consulted.
Senator Dawson: But you didn’t hold a steering committee.
The Chair: That’s correct, I did not, because I thought we’d decide here today, and I can see why. But we have a motion on the floor.
Senator Plett: There is a motion on the floor.
The Chair: There’s a motion on the floor, and then you can put yours on.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I raised my hand before.
The Chair: It doesn’t matter. You can do it after.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: We are appealing your decision. Can we vote on that?
The Chair: But I have a motion on the floor. What are you appealing? The fact that there is a motion on the floor? There is a motion on the floor, so let’s go to a vote.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It was my turn to speak.
The Chair: Let’s go to a vote on Senator Plett’s motion. Call the roll.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Abstain.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: You buggers. Clearly I think the people of Alberta should be consulted. But no, I’m not going to vote in favour of this motion.
Ms. Nadeau: Yes, 5; no, 6; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: Senator Miville-Dechêne, you had a motion?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
[Translation]
I would like to introduce the following motion, which is that the steering committee be given the responsibility of preparing a balanced list of witnesses and a work plan.
[English]
Should I translate?
The Chair: Could you repeat that, please?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes. I would instruct the steering committee to establish a balanced list of witnesses and a work plan.
Senator Plett: The steering committee is a subcommittee of this committee. They have the authority, as a subcommittee, to meet. The problem is that they have to all be present for them to meet. They already have that authority. They can meet if they so choose. They can meet at any point and bring forward a plan. At the end of the day, it will be this committee that will either approve, reject or amend any work plan that they have.
I find it to be a completely unnecessary motion, and I will be voting against it for that reason.
Senator Galvez: I want to repeat what I said at the beginning of this meeting. I found it very surprising to know that instructions were given to the analyst and to the clerk without having a proper steering committee. It is very evident that there is a problem concerning the efficient work of the steering committee; therefore, we must clearly instruct the steering committee that we are expecting a work plan and a balanced list of witnesses. So, I will vote in favour of the motion.
The Chair: I’m going to call the question.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Gagné?
Senator Gagné: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Galvez?
Senator Galvez: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Nadeau: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Ms. Nadeau: Yes, 7; no, 5.
The Chair: Senator MacDonald, do you have a motion?
Senator McCoy?
Senator McCoy: I know that all senators want to base their decisions on evidence and, of course, be neutral about this bill. I keep hearing that there will be a balanced list of witnesses, but about seven different perspectives need to be understood in terms of this bill, such as our international commitment for free passage in international waters. There are fishing co-management agreements, marine safety, the pilotage industry and the aspirations of the people in one community on Haida Gwaii, as well as how energy markets have shifted within the last decade. That is just one of the aspects, although Senator Galvez seems to be fixated on it. Then, of course, there are people in Grande Prairie, for example, and mayors of small towns all across Alberta and other places. So, there is municipal interest across boundaries.
This is a multi-textured, multidimensional question that we are being asked to address. It is not as simple as it appears. I’m sure the sponsor, having taken the bill on, knows that very well. It is just something that is going to take time if you do your study properly.
Senator Simons: I’d like to move a motion, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: And what would that be?
Senator Simons: I would like to move that the committee instruct steering to come up with a travel plan for us to go to northern British Columbia.
Senator Plett: That contradicts —
The Chair: That contradicts the motion on the floor. And it’s passed. They gave steering the right to develop the travel plans.
Senator Simons: It didn’t speak to travel. It spoke to a witness list and a work plan, but it didn’t specifically say a travel destination.
Senator Plett: It has a work plan. This motion contradicts a motion that we passed.
Senator Simons: I think it complements it.
Senator Plett: No. You should have amended the motion before. That motion passed. This would be an amendment to a motion which already passed. You should have made that amendment before we voted on that motion.
They have been given the mandate to come back with a work plan. A work plan could also include travel.
Senator Simons: Thank you, senator. I appreciate that. I’m new to this. That’s my mistake.
Senator D. Black: I must say, colleagues, I’m disappointed, on the first day out of the gate on this extremely important piece of legislation, that we have fallen to bickering the way we have fallen.
As Senator McCoy has set the stage, this is not a joke. Alberta and therefore Canada are being strangled. The energy industry is being strangled, as my colleague Senator Simons knows, so to create a circumstance where we would say we do not want to visit the very regions that are being hurt is absolutely incredible on the part of this organization.
Where we live, the concept of “coming to Ottawa to tell us your problems” is a punchline, the concept that we would sit here and expect people who are hurting, who are going to lose their livelihoods, where communities are going to be decimated, to come here to tell us of the pain that this is going to incur. When you leave here today, you are going to see the face of Alberta on the trucks that are in front of this building today. This is not an academic, intellectual conversation that we are having.
And it incenses me, as a senator from a region that is being hurt, which I would suggest is being targeted, that my colleagues wouldn’t say, “I can find two days to go and listen.”
Senators, what are you thinking, to sit here and vote against visiting Newfoundland and Labrador, against visiting Saskatchewan? That is our job.
Senator Plett: I’d like to make a motion that the committee now adjourn.
Senator Galvez: There is a waiting list.
The Chair: Adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)